5 ms·

Bradley Manning released a dump of over 700,000 files. Although there were some documents that revealed possible war crimes, there was no do due diligence perfo

by lotso 13y ago

Bradley Manning released a dump of over 700,000 files. Although there were some documents that revealed possible war crimes, there was no do due diligence performed to verify that the rest of the files were not putting people in danger. I'm curious as to how people are justifying those actions? If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them?

kaolinite 13y ago
I may be wrong but I believe at the time they said that they had gone through the documents to check for information that could put people in danger. They did a good job seemingly as the US govt said, internally, that nobody was endangered by the release of the documents.
- showerst 13y ago
  Wikileaks said they did that, but Manning did not. So they very well could've dumped them all had they been less ethical, or even by accident.
sophacles 13y ago
Probably - see Snowden. Further, the exclusion of possible war crimes is setting up a false equivalence. It is the crux of the situation, determines motive, and is the fundamental point of the release. Removing that, changes the situation enough that it is no longer a good comparison or rough equivalence.
rolux 13y ago
> If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them? Politics that do not have immediate personal consequences (or politics too hopeless to engage in) can easily become a spectator sport. On that level, when an instance of "uh, all my private communication just leaked to the NSA" is followed by a case of "oh, tons of classified documents just leaked to the general public", then it's likely that this will be understood as a quid pro quo, i.e. appreciated by a large number of spectators.
aqme28 13y ago
Didn't Snowden and Ellsberg also release a trove of files without "due diligence," relying on a third party to vet and process the files for publication?
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  no. Elseberg released one study about the Vietnam war. he actually read all of it and had been showing it around to senators and officials trying to get something done. he leaked it as a last resort. in his video interview with the Guardian Snowden explicitly contrasted what he did with what Manning did : snowden looked at what he was leaking and claims he kept stuff that would harm the US. ( he still supports what Manning did). this is the problem Manning literally did not read the classified information he was releasing and given his obligation to protect sensitive information and knowing that in some cases information was classified to protect lives( e.g informant names), his actions were morally reckless. if he had leaked just the collateral murder video , the he would have been justified.
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  no. Elseberg released one study about the Vietnam war. he actually read all of it and had been showing it around to senators and officials trying to get something done. he leaked it as a last resort. in his video interview with the Guardian Snowden explicitly contrasted what he did with what Manning did : snowden looked at what he was leaking and claims he kept stuff that would harm the US. ( he still supports what Manning did). this is the problem Manning literally did not read the classified information he was releasing and given his obligation to protect sensitive information and knowing that in some cases information was classified to protect lives( e.g informant names), his actions were morally reckless. if he had leaked just the collateral murder video , the he would have been justified.
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  no. Elseberg released one study about the Vietnam war. he actually read all of it and had been showing it around to senators and officials trying to get something done. he leaked it as a last resort. in his video interview with the Guardian Snowden explicitly contrasted what he did with what Manning did : snowden looked at what he was leaking and claims he kept stuff that would harm the US. ( he still supports what Manning did). this is the problem Manning literally did not read the classified information he was releasing and given his obligation to protect sensitive information and knowing that in some cases information was classified to protect lives( e.g informant names), his actions were morally reckless. if he had leaked just the collateral murder video , the he would have been justified.
veritas20 13y ago
How about if someone revealed the identities of CIA agents? Scooter Libby...remember him? He's chilling somewhere right now as a free man.
- cagey 13y ago
  Wasn't it Richard Armitage that did that? "He has acknowledged that he publicly released the classified information that Valerie Plame Wilson was a secret agent for the CIA, triggering the Plame Affair, though he has said it was inadvertent."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_%28politician%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_%28politician...
  - veritas20 13y ago
    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17479718/ns/politics/t/jurors-convict-libby-four-five-charges/#.UhUQK5Lqjzg http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17479718/ns/politics/t/jurors-conv...
    - cagey 13y ago
      AFAICT (and IMHO peculiarly) nobody in this "affair" was ever actually charged with "revealing the identities of CIA agents", and Scooter Libby was definitely neither tried nor convicted of same. He was convicted of crimes (perjury, obstruction of justice), absolutely, but none that match your claim. Further, according to [1] the case was pressed anew as a civil suit (by Wilson(s), and later, CREW, against Cheney, Rove, and Libby) which reached as high as the Supreme Court, failing at each step. "The Wilsons have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. On May 20, 2009, the Justice Department, in a brief filed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan ... "According to the brief filed by the [Obama] Justice Department: "Petitioners allege that Novak's July 14, 2003 column publicly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert CIA employment and that that disclosure 'destroyed her cover as a classified CIA employee.' Petitioners, however, allege that Novak's source was Armitage, and do not allege that any of the three defendants against whom Mr. Wilson presses his First Amendment claim-Cheney, Rove, and Libby-caused that column to be published. In the absence of factual allegations that Mr. Wilson's alleged injury from the public disclosure of his wife's CIA employment is 'fairly traceable' to alleged conduct by Cheney, Rove, or Libby, petitioners have failed to establish Article III jurisdiction over Mr. Wilson's First Amendment claim."[1] (italics mine) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Civil_suit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Civil_suit
baddox 13y ago
> If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them? I would. I don't trust the government to decide what should and shouldn't be confidential, and I'd be curious to hear any justifications for why the government deserves even the slightest bit of trust.
- mpyne 13y ago
  So your position is that what that person did is OK because you personally don't trust the government? What other crimes would you then permit because you don't trust the government? Would it be OK to stab soldiers then? They work the government. How about robbing postal workers? Which crimes no longer are crimes when the government is the victim, and which rules do you use to determine that? And then take the same question and apply it to corporations. You may not trust Google, for instance; would you say that it's OK then for a Google employee to leak 700,000 random emails from GMail because that would embarrass Google? If not, why is your logic different here?
  - baddox 13y ago
    > So your position is that what that person did is OK because you personally don't trust the government? What do you mean by "OK"? The question I was responding to was whether I would defend him, and I said yes. I'm not making a legal or moral argument, I'm just expressing my personal preference.

by lotso 13y ago

kaolinite 13y ago

I may be wrong but I believe at the time they said that they had gone through the documents to check for information that could put people in danger. They did a good job seemingly as the US govt said, internally, that nobody was endangered by the release of the documents.

showerst 13y ago
Wikileaks said they did that, but Manning did not. So they very well could've dumped them all had they been less ethical, or even by accident.

sophacles 13y ago

Probably - see Snowden. Further, the exclusion of possible war crimes is setting up a false equivalence. It is the crux of the situation, determines motive, and is the fundamental point of the release. Removing that, changes the situation enough that it is no longer a good comparison or rough equivalence.

rolux 13y ago

> If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them? Politics that do not have immediate personal consequences (or politics too hopeless to engage in) can easily become a spectator sport. On that level, when an instance of "uh, all my private communication just leaked to the NSA" is followed by a case of "oh, tons of classified documents just leaked to the general public", then it's likely that this will be understood as a quid pro quo, i.e. appreciated by a large number of spectators.

aqme28 13y ago

Didn't Snowden and Ellsberg also release a trove of files without "due diligence," relying on a third party to vet and process the files for publication?

anologwintermut 13y ago
no. Elseberg released one study about the Vietnam war. he actually read all of it and had been showing it around to senators and officials trying to get something done. he leaked it as a last resort. in his video interview with the Guardian Snowden explicitly contrasted what he did with what Manning did : snowden looked at what he was leaking and claims he kept stuff that would harm the US. ( he still supports what Manning did). this is the problem Manning literally did not read the classified information he was releasing and given his obligation to protect sensitive information and knowing that in some cases information was classified to protect lives( e.g informant names), his actions were morally reckless. if he had leaked just the collateral murder video , the he would have been justified.
anologwintermut 13y ago
no. Elseberg released one study about the Vietnam war. he actually read all of it and had been showing it around to senators and officials trying to get something done. he leaked it as a last resort. in his video interview with the Guardian Snowden explicitly contrasted what he did with what Manning did : snowden looked at what he was leaking and claims he kept stuff that would harm the US. ( he still supports what Manning did). this is the problem Manning literally did not read the classified information he was releasing and given his obligation to protect sensitive information and knowing that in some cases information was classified to protect lives( e.g informant names), his actions were morally reckless. if he had leaked just the collateral murder video , the he would have been justified.
anologwintermut 13y ago
no. Elseberg released one study about the Vietnam war. he actually read all of it and had been showing it around to senators and officials trying to get something done. he leaked it as a last resort. in his video interview with the Guardian Snowden explicitly contrasted what he did with what Manning did : snowden looked at what he was leaking and claims he kept stuff that would harm the US. ( he still supports what Manning did). this is the problem Manning literally did not read the classified information he was releasing and given his obligation to protect sensitive information and knowing that in some cases information was classified to protect lives( e.g informant names), his actions were morally reckless. if he had leaked just the collateral murder video , the he would have been justified.

veritas20 13y ago

How about if someone revealed the identities of CIA agents? Scooter Libby...remember him? He's chilling somewhere right now as a free man.

cagey 13y ago
Wasn't it Richard Armitage that did that? "He has acknowledged that he publicly released the classified information that Valerie Plame Wilson was a secret agent for the CIA, triggering the Plame Affair, though he has said it was inadvertent."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_%28politician%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_%28politician...
- veritas20 13y ago
  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17479718/ns/politics/t/jurors-convict-libby-four-five-charges/#.UhUQK5Lqjzg http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17479718/ns/politics/t/jurors-conv...
  - cagey 13y ago
    AFAICT (and IMHO peculiarly) nobody in this "affair" was ever actually charged with "revealing the identities of CIA agents", and Scooter Libby was definitely neither tried nor convicted of same. He was convicted of crimes (perjury, obstruction of justice), absolutely, but none that match your claim. Further, according to [1] the case was pressed anew as a civil suit (by Wilson(s), and later, CREW, against Cheney, Rove, and Libby) which reached as high as the Supreme Court, failing at each step. "The Wilsons have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. On May 20, 2009, the Justice Department, in a brief filed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan ... "According to the brief filed by the [Obama] Justice Department: "Petitioners allege that Novak's July 14, 2003 column publicly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert CIA employment and that that disclosure 'destroyed her cover as a classified CIA employee.' Petitioners, however, allege that Novak's source was Armitage, and do not allege that any of the three defendants against whom Mr. Wilson presses his First Amendment claim-Cheney, Rove, and Libby-caused that column to be published. In the absence of factual allegations that Mr. Wilson's alleged injury from the public disclosure of his wife's CIA employment is 'fairly traceable' to alleged conduct by Cheney, Rove, or Libby, petitioners have failed to establish Article III jurisdiction over Mr. Wilson's First Amendment claim."[1] (italics mine) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Civil_suit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Civil_suit

baddox 13y ago

> If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them? I would. I don't trust the government to decide what should and shouldn't be confidential, and I'd be curious to hear any justifications for why the government deserves even the slightest bit of trust.

mpyne 13y ago
So your position is that what that person did is OK because you personally don't trust the government? What other crimes would you then permit because you don't trust the government? Would it be OK to stab soldiers then? They work the government. How about robbing postal workers? Which crimes no longer are crimes when the government is the victim, and which rules do you use to determine that? And then take the same question and apply it to corporations. You may not trust Google, for instance; would you say that it's OK then for a Google employee to leak 700,000 random emails from GMail because that would embarrass Google? If not, why is your logic different here?
- baddox 13y ago
  > So your position is that what that person did is OK because you personally don't trust the government? What do you mean by "OK"? The question I was responding to was whether I would defend him, and I said yes. I'm not making a legal or moral argument, I'm just expressing my personal preference.